Today, Olympus has announced another member of its Stylus family, the Stylus Digital 800.

Looks nice, but notice what it says on the front.

(view front page of DCRP for the image now) (http://www.dcresource.com)

Yep, you saw it, 8 Megapixels. This thing is retailing for 350 pounds which translates to a shocking price of $650 USD and more like a price of $600 when it hits the shelves. (Edit - Why are things in Europe so much more expensive?! It's selling in the US for a much more affordable $450)

I always thought Olympus knew better than this. But it too has succumbed to the megapixel craze. Who in the world would want an 8 megapixel camera like this? I'd almost prefer to have less because of all the noise introduced as well as the slower write speeds caused by the larger image files.

I can understand for a DSLR that megapixels can make a difference for some photographers, but for your average person, I see more hurt than help right now.

Seriously though now everything is getting high MP counts they may have to start to differentiate on different factors other than pure MP count, so it may be a blessing in disguise... Wishful thinking maybe?

Rex914

05-11-2005, 10:46 PM

Hopefully that's the case, but I can't think of too many other (marketable) features which can be improved at relatively little cost. Software is one area I can think of, and that could potentially get gimmicky if abused. Is there any major area I'm missing where they could honestly wage war? Lenses are out. LCD's can't get bigger past a certain point (plus dead pixels become a real serious problem). Speed/performance is only bumped up every couple years. ISO is a potential area for major improvement that Fuji has capitalized upon. Other than that, I'm stumped.

Sigbhu

05-11-2005, 10:52 PM

I AGRree with you--how stupid can olympus get--stuffing all those pixels into a miniscule sensor---as stupid as every other camera manufacturer, including canon, who seem to think that the noiser a sensor is, the more it sells(look at the increasing MP counts and the decreasing sizes)

but rmember olympus is in a do-or-die situation here--it is under tremendoous pressure just to stay alive. they have their long term futures (in terms of 4/3) secure, but their short term futures--with those massive losses this year--must be getting them jittery, especially when kodak and sony are edging them out everywhere.

but bizzarely, i think there is a market for this camera--some chaps with too much money and too little brains would easily want a camera like that---and from the way things are---there are a lot of people like that!

Rex914

05-11-2005, 10:56 PM

You think that there are people out there who'd prefer this over a prosumer camera like a G6, Sony V3, or even Olympus' own 7070 WZ for the same price? Maybe on size, but it's a hard sell to give up limitless functionality for little functionality.

Oddly enough, I'm glad to see the megapixel wars continue. Why? It means that DSLRs will have to improve in quality and megapixel size as will compacts. The general public won't really know much more than "more megapixels is better". This will have a knock-on effect of creating a need for bigger and faster memory cards and hence lower-priced cards. Probably we'll see faster computers and better imaging software also.

Ouch! Luckily, they've got other more profitable businesses running in other sectors. Pricing wars are good for consumers, but some companies succumb to it in the process.

Rhys, you're right about the increase in performance and capacity. At the rate things are going, we are seeing about a 2x increase in capacity each year (just like Hard Drives on computers). This year, 256 and 512 MB are the bare standard. Next year, that will becomes 512 and 1 GB, then 1 GB and 2 GB and so on...

Edit - Something in that press release just cracks me up.

Olympus once again demonstrates that digital camera design is about more than just the number of pixels and the size of the LCD...

MissJezabelle

05-17-2005, 10:25 AM

what nonsense. The 1st digicam I purchased was a 5.25, and was the stuff when I got it. It works pretty darn good. Just recently I bought a cannon DSLR. I needed more, not more Mp, just more everything else. and it is still only a 6.3 mp. I see no sense in putting 8mp on a consumer grade camera.

erichlund

05-17-2005, 10:57 AM

Since they are going to push the envelope, would you rather they do it with relatively inexpensive consumer grade equipment or on your much more expensive kit. I say, let them work the bugs out on the cheap cameras, and move it to more expensive equipment when the technology matures. After all, there's nothing that says we have to be lemmings and all go over the cliff buying the bleeding edge of technology.

Rhys

05-17-2005, 12:02 PM

I'm looking at the 8 megapixel Canon XT.

That gives 8 megapixels or 3266 x 2449 pixels (approx)

So, doing a quick calculation, the final image size should be something in the region of 2309 x 3464 or (at 144 dpi) 24 x 16 (inches - multiply both sides by 2.54 for centimeters)

Just out of curiosity I'll calculate 6 megapixels in the same way...

This gives 2000 x 3000 pixels or (144 dpi) 13.8 x 20.8. Ok so there's really not much difference between 6 and 8 megapixels - just 2.2 x 3.2 inches. I suppose it allows extra room fore cropping and does allow a full 24 x 16 print if needed. This would seem ideally aimed at wedding photographers. While I have seen wedding photos that are quite large, most people don't really want more than a couple of 5 x 7s or occasionally a 10 x 8. Oddly enough - a Canon D30 would be ideal for 10 x 8 prints!

JTL

05-17-2005, 01:33 PM

All this megapixel talk is missing a very big point...and that is even something like a 1Ds Mark II with 16.7MP barely achieves the photo quality of 100 ASA film. Given today's sensor technology, it is clear that to ever hope to achieve the quality of postive film, somewhere in the the neighborhood of 30MP will be required. So all this talk of 3MP and 6MP being enough is just a bunch of rationalizing as far as I'm concerned...

I think that it’s pretty low standards indeed to say that you’re happy with around half the quality (or less) of 100 ASA film…

jamison55

05-17-2005, 01:55 PM

All this megapixel talk is missing a very big point...and that is even something like a 1Ds Mark II with 16.7MP barely achieves the photo quality of 100 ASA film. Given today's sensor technology, it is clear that to ever hope to achieve the quality of postive film, somewhere in the the neighborhood of 30MP will be required. So all this talk of 3MP and 6MP being enough is just a bunch of rationalizing as far as I'm concerned...

I think that it’s pretty low standards indeed to say that you’re happy with around half the quality (or less) of 100 ASA film…

Hmmm, not everyone agrees with this assessment: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

(With a 3 MP D30 no less)

JTL

05-17-2005, 02:14 PM

Hmmm, not everyone agrees with this assessment: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

(With a 3 MP D30 no less)I most respectfully submit that a "scanned" 35mm film image is not a film image and that the above test is not in fact a comparison of film vs. digital. It is digital (camera) vs. digital (scanner).

And, to be fair, there are plenty of people on the other side of the arguement, including Popular Photgraphy. I'm just throwing it out there so that people don't lose sight of this...

Rex914

05-17-2005, 03:01 PM

I wouldn't mind 8 MP if it were actually better. But it isn't. It's actually worse. Look at the images that the G6 takes and compare them to any of the 8 MP cameras. The G6 trounces any 8 MP camera in image quality. Well trounces may be an exaggeration, but I think we all agree that Sony's 7 MP sensor was a lot more successful than its 8 MP sensor for good reasons.

jeisner

05-17-2005, 03:02 PM

And, to be fair, there are plenty of people on the other side of the arguement, including Popular Photgraphy. I'm just throwing it out there so that people don't lose sight of this...

"I’d say it’s settled. ISO 100 color negative film may capture a bit more detail than the 1Ds Mark II under ideal lighting conditions, with a great lens, and on a supersteady tripod. But for its better color and lower noise, the “Color Image Quality” award goes to Canon’s $8,000 digital SLR. Seeing is believing…or is it vice-versa?"

jamison55

05-17-2005, 03:38 PM

This could be the start of another dangerous thread...it is a debate that is as old as digital photography itself.

For me, I got rid of the film equipment when I (and more importantly my clients) stopped being able to tell the difference between a print from a digital camera and a print from my film camera (a Pentax P30t loaded with Fuji NPS 160 professional portrait film). I get wedding clients all of the time who were shown digital enlargements that were of poor quality (mostly by photogs who still shoot film - or haven't upgraded their portfolios in a while) , and are leery of the medium. Fact is, the largest print I currenly offer is 11x14 (and don't get many orders for those), and at that size and smaller, the 8MP sensor of the 20D is more than up to the task. I keep a few enlargements around for clients to view, and show them prints from both film and digital. I then ask them to pick out the film prints...they never can :p

"I’d say it’s settled. ISO 100 color negative film may capture a bit more detail than the 1Ds Mark II under ideal lighting conditions, with a great lens, and on a supersteady tripod. But for its better color and lower noise, the “Color Image Quality” award goes to Canon’s $8,000 digital SLR. Seeing is believing…or is it vice-versa?"Thanks...that's the article I was referring to. $8,000. is a lot to spend on a camera for us mere mortals just to match 100 ASA film...

The real challenge will be to match transparancy film. I have no doubt whatsoever that this will eventually happen. Technology is moving very quickly...and it's reasonable to assume that advancments in sensor design will change things radically. But we're not there yet...which was my original point...

jeisner

05-17-2005, 04:02 PM

EDIT: In reference to jamison55's post

No don't want to end up with another locked thread.... hell I still enjoy shooting both colour and B&W film...

I was just pointing out that 'Popular Photography' (as they were the example used) did say 30mp was required, but in that article they say that is no longer their opinion, that is all...

erichlund

05-18-2005, 08:36 AM

I wouldn't mind 8 MP if it were actually better. But it isn't. It's actually worse. Look at the images that the G6 takes and compare them to any of the 8 MP cameras. The G6 trounces any 8 MP camera in image quality. Well trounces may be an exaggeration, but I think we all agree that Sony's 7 MP sensor was a lot more successful than its 8 MP sensor for good reasons.

So, don't buy the camera that doesn't produce. The manufacturers are going to make some bad cameras. Hopefully, they learn how to make better cameras from the result of making bad cameras.

When you review a restaurant and give them a poor rating, does that mean they should just quit? No, it means they should work to do better. 8mp is currently the bleeding edge of small ccd technology. It's not going to be as mature as 5 and 6 mp technology. Remember, a year ago, we were all decrying the noise in 5 and 6 mp sensors. Now you're saying: Look how good the 7 mp is compared to the 8.

The camera companies have to sell cameras to pay for research to improve. Sometimes they have to sell crappy cameras to suckers. Just don't be a sucker.

Cheers,
Eric

Rhys

05-18-2005, 11:01 AM

I agree that in terms of quality we're buying barely adequate cameras that in a year or so we'll call rubbish. The whole "how big do you want to print to" is a load of rationalisation and mealy-mouthed excuses for what is at best, terrible quality.

8 megapixels is about adequate for a 16 x 24 print and no more. My off-the-cuff calculation was - several years ago - that 80 megapixels were needed in order to equal Agfa Pan 25 or Kodachrome 25. What we have at the moment barely equals Neopan 1600.

D70FAN

05-18-2005, 04:57 PM

I agree that in terms of quality we're buying barely adequate cameras that in a year or so we'll call rubbish. The whole "how big do you want to print to" is a load of rationalisation and mealy-mouthed excuses for what is at best, terrible quality.

8 megapixels is about adequate for a 16 x 24 print and no more. My off-the-cuff calculation was - several years ago - that 80 megapixels were needed in order to equal Agfa Pan 25 or Kodachrome 25. What we have at the moment barely equals Neopan 1600.

It is pretty odd that professional photographers who have been earning a living doing this for 30, or more, years have made the switch (100% in most cases) to digital. That doesn't mean there aren't some still using film, but in my experience they are few and far between. Even the medium format guys have gone to digital backs (only 22MP).

So maybe, for 90% of professional needs, and 99.9% of amature needs, film is actually overkill. Can you really see a big difference? Probably not, unless you are doing a side-by-side comparison at a very short viewing distance. Most people don't do a side-by-side comparison.

So my personal conclusion is that "technically" film is superior to digital imaging but I submit that film quality is actually "overkill" for almost any normal shooting, pro or amature, AND the advantages of shooting digital far outweigh the minor real world print differences with film.

Rhys

05-18-2005, 05:39 PM

It is pretty odd that professional photographers who have been earning a living doing this for 30, or more, years have made the switch (100% in most cases) to digital. That doesn't mean there aren't some still using film, but in my experience they are few and far between. Even the medium format guys have gone to digital backs (only 22MP).

So maybe, for 90% of professional needs, and 99.9% of amature needs, film is actually overkill. Can you really see a big difference? Probably not, unless you are doing a side-by-side comparison at a very short viewing distance. Most people don't do a side-by-side comparison.

So my personal conclusion is that "technically" film is superior to digital imaging but I submit that film quality is actually "overkill" for almost any normal shooting, pro or amature, AND the advantages of shooting digital far outweigh the minor real world print differences with film.

I suspect you'll find that most pros have analysed digital in favour of film in two ways:
1. Press photographers - for them the speed is more important than image quality given that newsprint is not of very high definition. Typically less than 30 dpi in many instances. That's why the press went for it. Now they're lapping up the extra quality as it allows greater cropping etc.
2. Specialist photographers - these are the portrait and wedding crowd. Opinion is very much divided between them as to whether digital or film is best. Many say "I'm invested in film - I won't go digital until it comes at a sensible price". Those that have gone for it are calculating that 16 x 24 is the absolute largest enlargement required. If their client wants more then they have to use film. Again speed and quick after shot review is important.

Note - I haven't mentioned advertising photographers using medium format. This was deliberate as they're a separate genre altogether.

Film allows for larger prints but digital allows for greater speed.

Personally, starting out in the wedding photography business, speed will be more important than the utmost quality. I can hand clients a price list stating that the photos may be printed to 6 x 4, 5 x 7, 10 x 8, 20 x 16 etc. They won't order a 36 x 24 print because it's not a provided service.

I agree film is technically a lot more capable. I want that capability. I feel the digital comparison with film as portrayed by the media, advertisers and manufacturers is shoddy. They're different beasties. And BTW I do predict the demise of film within 10 years.

cwphoto

05-18-2005, 07:47 PM

I don't know what kind of gear you guys are on over the other side of the world, but where I stand, around 8MP is more or less equal to 135 film in terms of "quality" (grain/noise or whatever you want to call it).

I've borrowed both of Canon's new EOS-1D cameras (8.2 & 16.7 MP) recently and the 16.7 absolutely kills my 135 prints and is starting to approach those from my Rollei (120/220).

My game is mainly wedding, editorial and architectural. This latest EOS-1Ds is what I have been waiting for - and I can't get it quick enough (anyone wanna buy a one-owner low-mileage EOS-1N HS??).

The only real future I see for film is that for fine-art photographers who want the extra dynamic range (beyond five stops) and flexibility which film (particularly B&W sheets eg; zone system) offers.

Now we can work out the distance covered by the pixels. Assuming a dpi of 144 (my preferred standard) then we have a print of 23 inches by 34 or in other words approximately 24 x 36.

Given that I've seen some much larger, high-quality prints from Pan F and so on, I don't think that 16.7 megapixels is that great. It's passable for most things though.

Now if we moved to 80 megapixels then we'd have
7302 x 10954 pixels or a print (144 dpi) of 50 x 76 which would be pretty good and just about equal to the finest of the 35mm films. Having said that, somebody did use a fine-grained colour print film to make a billboard once and the grain was barely visible.

D70FAN

05-19-2005, 10:37 AM

The only real future I see for film is that for fine-art photographers who want the extra dynamic range (beyond five stops) and flexibility which film (particularly B&W sheets eg; zone system) offers.

But how long before this is offered in a digital environment too??

Even dynamic range is not really an issue as you can shoot multiple frames at different exposures and combine them to achieve 16 stops of dynamic range. You could always do this manually but now Adobe has a simple DRE function that can do this for you. And several high end cameras (including the D2X and 1Ds) allow more than 2 or 3 frames for exposure bracketing.

From what I've read (I haven't tried this yet) to get 16 stops actually requires multiple frames at different shutter speeds, but for that kind of dynamic range, I see this as a future feature (electronic shutter speed exposure Bracketing) on pro cameras, where even the combining of RAW frames is done in-camera in addition to having the separate frames available.

It's all software...and at about 200MB per frame, memory card size. Where are those 16GB CFII cards?

erichlund

05-20-2005, 08:15 AM

I just reread your post more carefully, I guess you covered some of the technical details I talk about below already. :o

George, you raise an interesting concept that, in my limited post processing experience, I've not heard of before. However, it does have limited utility. Your subject has to be static. Even something as simple as a photo of trees in autumn, with a light breeze, would be problematic. The leaves would never be in exactly the same position on multiple exposures.

Conceptually, you could defeat this problem with parallel buffers. I suspect this is well beyond current memory speeds, but if you could save to the buffers as fast as the exposure occurs on the sensor, you could stop each buffer based on an amount of exposure. Of course, if you had this capability in camera, then I would expect the camera to be able to combine the buffers to extract the wider dynamic range, eliminating the need to post process.

BTW: Obviously, this would eliminate the need for a mechanical shutter. I suspect that technically, it's already an anachronism, just waiting for some company to have the rocks to take it out. After all, some cameras already use a combination of mechanical and electronic shutter.

Cheers,
Eric

JTL

05-20-2005, 11:31 AM

BTW: Obviously, this would eliminate the need for a mechanical shutter. I suspect that technically, it's already an anachronism, just waiting for some company to have the rocks to take it out. After all, some cameras already use a combination of mechanical and electronic shutter.

Cheers,
EricThe whole concept of a dSLR will eventually go away....or more likely, exist in parallel with different designs that achieve the same quality results. The current design is an accommodation to the past to preserve existing lens investment and to give users a familiar metaphor. And, to reduce manufacturing costs. It is not necessary from a technology perspective to achieve dSLR results only via the current design...

manilaboy

05-20-2005, 03:26 PM

All of this manufacturer are only after your hard earned dollar.

I am a professional photographer and owner of a pro photo lab here in Mississauga Ontario Canada and I have done and seen the evolution of digital cameras.

If I cannot recover the cost of the camera within one year through its usage I would not buy it.

Right now the technology keeps on changing. And the investments you put into the gears is not recoverable at all.

I have own digital cameras for the last seven years and I haven't seen my investments return at all.

I still make money on my film cameras. :)

Rhys

05-20-2005, 04:26 PM

All of this manufacturer are only after your hard earned dollar.

I am a professional photographer and owner of a pro photo lab here in Mississauga Ontario Canada and I have done and seen the evolution of digital cameras.

If I cannot recover the cost of the camera within one year through its usage I would not buy it.

Right now the technology keeps on changing. And the investments you put into the gears is not recoverable at all.

I have own digital cameras for the last seven years and I haven't seen my investments return at all.

I still make money on my film cameras. :)

That's a pretty good statement and a pretty good analysis of the industry. It's very much as Marx says: entrepreneurs continually supporting capitalism by producing an endless supply of infereor goods and persuading the prolitariat to part with their money for something that will be junk within a very short time.

Anybody that believes that last year's 6 megapixel dSLRs will be viable in say 2 years time is most likely to be disappointed. I see this year's standard as 8 megapixels and next looks likely 10 be 12/16. The year after could well be 20.

Of course the downside of ever-increasing quality is that the current storage media are going to be way too small. CDs will hold only 700mb. DVDs only 4.7GB. Guessing that a 20mb image is most likely going to weigh in at 70mb for a raw image then CDs will hold 10, DVDs will hold 70 (approx). Memory cards will have to change too. We'll need 100GB memory cards. As XD has a theoretical maximum of 8gb then that'll go flop like Smart Media. Compact Flash will continue and Secure Digital might not max out until say 30GB.

Considering the cost of equipment that needs to be updated semi-annually to make the most of the possibilities, that means an annual expendature of $1500 for a top-end Canon or $7000 for a top-end Kodak.

Considering that film scanners are $600 for a good one and that Rolei TLRs are perfect for weddings etc, I'd assume that 120 film will continue for quite some time yet. I'm still analysing the market and see 120 film and a scanner as offering more possibilities per buck than a dSLR.

jamison55

05-20-2005, 06:39 PM

I have own digital cameras for the last seven years and I haven't seen my investments return at all.

Sorry, but this is not my experience. A $1500 digital body (like a Canon 20D) is quite sufficient for professional work, 2 of those cost $3000. The average American couple pays $3500 for their wedding photography. Given $1500 - 2000 in cost for the photographer, the equipment pays for itself in two weddings. I am the cheap wedding photographer this year, and I have already paid for all of my digital equipment. In fact, my costs are only about $50 per wedding because I shoot digital. Would have had to add a couple hundred more if I had to buy pro film and and pay for processing.

Rhys

05-20-2005, 07:09 PM

Sorry, but this is not my experience. A $1500 digital body (like a Canon 20D) is quite sufficient for professional work, 2 of those cost $3000. The average American couple pays $3500 for their wedding photography. Given $1500 - 2000 in cost for the photographer, the equipment pays for itself in two weddings. I am the cheap wedding photographer this year, and I have already paid for all of my digital equipment. In fact, my costs are only about $50 per wedding because I shoot digital. Would have had to add a couple hundred more if I had to buy pro film and and pay for processing.

Huh?

120 roll film x 10 (120 shots) + 10 x processing then scan and put onto a site like smugmug for customers to order prints from... I can't see that costing much more than $120 in total (if that).

erichlund

05-20-2005, 09:24 PM

First of all, the business person who goes out and continuously buys new equipment without regard to the bottom line is soon an employee or unemployed. There is only one purpose to be in business and that is to make money. As soon as you lose focus on that, your done.

As for buying $3000 worth of equipment and paying for it in two weddings, apparently you live in a cave and eat weeds. I'm not trying to be nasty, just pointing out that you must make a profit or you may soon live in a cave (or worse). As an individual business person, you need to make enough profit to live upon, or you are better off as an employee.

I understand the concept of capital investment, but you have to expense that equipment over the expected life of the equipment. It's called accounting and it's part of the planning process so that you can succeed in business.

Cheers,
Eric

TheObiJuan

05-20-2005, 09:39 PM

Regarding your comment about Jamie eating weeds.. :confused:

He has another job, wedding photography I am sure is bonus cash. He said that what he spent on 2 cameras he could have recovered in two weddings, implying that the rest of the weddings done would be all profit. This "profit" would enable him to buy better gear to fascilitate his photography business or eat food other than "weeds."

The purpose for purchasing a 20D is that it is a rugged camera that can produce very nice images for atleast 6 years. It doesn't matter where technology leads, the images it produces are still amazing and are marketable.
There is no "need" to upgrade to any other camera. Lenses, however, are another issue.

Rhys, developing film is annoying and pricey. As a wedding photographer the ability to turn around and potentially have the images available before that night ends is huge reason many go digital. Storing/archiving film is a pain, thousands of digital images only take a couple of inches.

D70FAN

05-20-2005, 10:11 PM

Huh?

120 roll film x 10 (120 shots) + 10 x processing then scan and put onto a site like smugmug for customers to order prints from... I can't see that costing much more than $120 in total (if that).

But... how much time spent processing and scanning? And how much did that film scanner cost? What was the advantage of scanning 120 film at 4800dpi?

Can you produce images the same day? At the reception? On a Sunday?

Get real here. I don't know a single wedding photographer still using film full time. It just doesn't compete. While you are waiting for the lab, you competition is getting paid. I haven't seen any 1 hour photo places that process 120/220.

I was about to buy a used Pentax 645 when the camera sales guy said "this camera was used by a wedding photographer who just bought a D70".

I didn't buy the 645...even though it was a heck of a deal with a 75, a 105, and 2 backs for $600 all in mint condition.

TheObiJuan

05-20-2005, 10:53 PM

My dad had a pentax 645 back in the day.

George, I agree with all of your assertions.
Really, the D70 makes a great wedding camera, so long as now weird patterns appear on wedding dresses. ;)

I wouldn't mind a ulltra compact with 4-5 MP with a useable ISO 1600 and manual controls. ;)

Phill D

05-21-2005, 12:01 AM

Just saw an article about a 144 megapixel camera on the BBC & thought people might like to look (see link below). The level of detail captured in the images is incredible, shame about the speed of image capture!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4564563.stm

I feel a bit under powered with my 5 megapixels now but at least I don't need a van to carry my Panasonic around.

jamison55

05-21-2005, 04:16 AM

As for buying $3000 worth of equipment and paying for it in two weddings, apparently you live in a cave and eat weeds.

Mmmmmmm, these weeds sure are tasty!

My example was an extreme one meant to answer the fella who said that his digital equipment hadn't paid for itself in 9 years of professional photography. I definitely understand that you would not be able to invest all of your capital from two weddings into your equipment unless, like me, the photography is a side business. The full time pro photographer has much more overhead, in addition to being able to feed his/her family.

However, You can purchase a great digital wedding kit for around $5,000 (2 D70's, assorted lenses, flashes, memory). That is all you need to start a photography business. What other small business can you start for such a small investment? And, as a business person, you're telling me you can't recoup the cost of your equipment over a few weddings?

Let's think about this. Assuming a $3000 wedding package, about $1000 is actual cost by the time you make the album. That's $2000 left over. If you shoot 30 weddings in a year, that's $60,000 net. Subtract the cost of your equipment (first year only, then replacement as it breaks), you are down to $55,000. Subtract other costs like insurance and membership in professional associations, you are down to $50,000. $50,000(which you must pay taxes on-of course), buys a lot of weeds... :D

Rhys

05-21-2005, 08:55 AM

At least with 120 film, one can produce very large prints - if the couple want poster-sized prints and for a lot less cost than a 16mp camera.

erichlund

05-21-2005, 12:49 PM

Mmmmmmm, these weeds sure are tasty!

OK. Sorry. I was a bit over the top with that part. :o

>>> Snip
I definitely understand that you would not be able to invest all of your capital from two weddings into your equipment unless, like me, the photography is a side business. The full time pro photographer has much more overhead, in addition to being able to feed his/her family.

Good, but a side business should be accounted the same as any other business. The only difference is your degree of risk is lower. If the business is not profitable, you can always quit. But a realistic view of the cost per event leads to better business decisions.

>>> snip ... And, as a business person, you're telling me you can't recoup the cost of your equipment over a few weddings?

Certainly, but it's not a realistic view of the cost per event. If you can spread the cost of the equipment over 2 years or 5 years or ??? ( = ? events ) then you can better plan future equipment purchases. You can set aside a certain amount from each event to realistically pay for future capital purchases, meaning you don't have to plop down the VISA and pay for interest as well. Also, it gives you an idea of what equipment to initially purchase. Sure, the D-70 is good now. Will it still be a good choice in the third year of 5 years, or would it be better to invest in beefier equipment. Or, do you want to establish some profitability for 2 years, planning on better equipment when the business is established?

Let's think about this. Assuming a $3000 wedding package, about $1000 is actual cost by the time you make the album. That's $2000 left over. If you shoot 30 weddings in a year, that's $60,000 net. Subtract the cost of your equipment (first year only, then replacement as it breaks), you are down to $55,000. Subtract other costs like insurance and membership in professional associations, you are down to $50,000. $50,000(which you must pay taxes on-of course), buys a lot of weeds... :D

This is more like it, though in a true business plan, I'd like to see the equipment spread over a true lifetime and a proper estimate of new capital over time. But, I also understand this is just a brief rationalization.

I guess all I'm really trying to do here is to help those that don't have business experience understand some of the concepts they must address if they are going into business for themselves.

Cheers,
Eric

cwphoto

05-22-2005, 06:07 PM

Let's think about this. Assuming a $3000 wedding package, about $1000 is actual cost by the time you make the album. That's $2000 left over. If you shoot 30 weddings in a year, that's $60,000 net. Subtract the cost of your equipment (first year only, then replacement as it breaks), you are down to $55,000. Subtract other costs like insurance and membership in professional associations, you are down to $50,000. $50,000(which you must pay taxes on-of course), buys a lot of weeds... :D

Now we can work out the distance covered by the pixels. Assuming a dpi of 144 (my preferred standard) then we have a print of 23 inches by 34 or in other words approximately 24 x 36.

Given that I've seen some much larger, high-quality prints from Pan F and so on, I don't think that 16.7 megapixels is that great. It's passable for most things though.

Now if we moved to 80 megapixels then we'd have
7302 x 10954 pixels or a print (144 dpi) of 50 x 76 which would be pretty good and just about equal to the finest of the 35mm films. Having said that, somebody did use a fine-grained colour print film to make a billboard once and the grain was barely visible.

Rhys, you should venture away from your calculator more often and have a look at the real world.

The digital files I have seen from a 1Ds kill ANY 135 format film (including Pan F, Kodachrome 25 etc) for detail. This is fact, there is no argumant against it, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

80 megapixels equal to a 35mm frame - you are SERIOUSLY deluded...

Rhys

05-22-2005, 06:24 PM

Rhys, you should venture away from your calculator more often and have a look at the real world.

The digital files I have seen from a 1Ds kill ANY 135 format film (including Pan F, Kodachrome 25 etc) for detail. This is fact, there is no argumant against it, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

80 megapixels equal to a 35mm frame - you are SERIOUSLY deluded...

OK. What's the biggest print you've seen from 35mm (without cropping) that was flawless, using Ektar 25 or Pan F or Agfapan 25 or Kodachrome 25?

cwphoto

05-22-2005, 06:33 PM

From what viewing distance (because even a billboard will look flawless from 100m)?

TheObiJuan

05-22-2005, 07:53 PM

1DS MKII files look excellent when printed at 24in x 36in.
I can get you some and you can print them out if you'd like.

Geoff Chandler

05-24-2005, 01:12 AM

OK. What's the biggest print you've seen from 35mm (without cropping) that was flawless, using Ektar 25 or Pan F or Agfapan 25 or Kodachrome 25?
I had a small poster of the French Water fall (posted in the Water fall thread) made from Ektar 25 - and that was pretty good - I reckon the lens was the limiting factor. - When I say small poster - it was around 2ft high

Rhys

05-24-2005, 06:13 AM

I had a small poster of the French Water fall (posted in the Water fall thread) made from Ektar 25 - and that was pretty good - I reckon the lens was the limiting factor. - When I say small poster - it was around 2ft high

The biggest I've heard is a 20' wide hoarding made using Ekta 25. I saw it and didn't think it looked that bad.

John_Reed

05-24-2005, 07:39 AM

With pixel interpolation, a collage of various shots rendered at 72 pixels/inch, printed on a 600 dpi plotter, put up on a wall to support a museum event. It looked very sharp, even reasonably close up. It was acclaimed as the show's biggest attraction, in fact.